If one examines the history of the men who have, as Tom Wolfe said, the right stuff, one will be impressed by the courage, skill and bravura they have shown, whether it be in the cockpit of Apollo 13 or the first spacewalk. They are the cream of American Manhood, and all small boys everywhere, and grown men too, share a secret lust for the stars and the life of those who dare to travel beyond our mortal realm.

These modern, and oh so chivalrous, knights may well be admirable, but one can't help get the feeling, as one inspects the photographs of these universally white, crew cut, blue eyed and rugged chinned men, that it might be better to choose another type of bodyform and temperament altogether.

At first this may seem outrageous, nay, utterly preposterous. But let us look at the supreme advantages gay men have over the sickeningly common, stereotypically heterosexual men currently employed.

Gay men have better visio-spatial and dexterity skills. Gay men are better at dexterity tests than heterosexual men, and are indeed comparable to women in this arena. They are also better at horizontal and vertical spatial orientation tasks. Obviously then, they would be far better suited to such tasks as piloting the shuttle, repairing the Hubble space telescope, and so on.

Homosexual men display a number of hypermasculine characteristics. This may seem like a strange qualification, but there have been concerns at NASA that the current crop of astronauts are too weak and submissive. When involved in joint missions with the Russians on Mir, the American astronauts were forced into submissive roles, such as cleaning toilets and swabbing floors, whilst the Russians did the expert, relatively interesting tasks in comfort. One astronaut, John Blaha, was referred to as the 'bitch' of the station. NASA has tried to compromise by sending more butch astronauts such as Michael Foales without much success, but by employing homosexual instead, they can be sure that their proven hypermasculine characteristics (such as: More sexual partners, larger gonads, more testosterone, etc etc) will save the day.

Gay men have more efficient brains. This is because the heterosexual man is strongly left brained, such that he is specialised towards simple reptilian tasks, but the homosexual man uses both sides of his brain equally, resulting in a superb, and highly efficient, synthesis. As the brain uses up to 30% of the energy consumed by our bodies, this means that they consume less food, and hence payloads on gay missions can be significantly smaller. As missions currently cost $100,000 per kilo, and NASA is trying to cost cut and do things smaller, cheaper, faster, we can see that the use of gay men exclusively would allow NASA to both cut costs and send more scientific instruments on future shuttle flights and missions to Mars.

Homosexual men can be lovers. As we turn our ambitions towards longer space missions, we can see that the issue of sex in space will become important, and that it is unreasonable and even cruel to send men on long, protracted missions without romantic company. There have been suggestions that the men use inflatable girlfriends - Russian cosmonauts on Mir once requested such a solution. However, it is feared that using these contraptions on extended space flights can result in so-called 'doll syndrome' - where the astronaut begins to prefer the doll to real female company. This is clearly inhumane and cruel. Obviously the solution is to employ gay men, who can then safely love one another. Gay sex is also less emotionally demanding that heterosexual sex. Where females lie back after sex, wonder what the future holds and demand emotional attention, cuddling and so forth, men can report to duty almost immediately, such is their perfunctory attitude to sex. Men seperate sex and emotion, where women do not. This is a great advantage.

Gay men are resistant to alienation. Space is an unforgiving place, where men must work alone without human comfort or variety for many lonesome hours. The typical gay man has faced such privations throughout his lifetime, as they are oppressed in our society from birth to death. What better way for NASA to get people used to this terrible affliction, the one affliction all of us fear more than any other, than to employ gay men?

Gay men are better housekeepers and are tidier. This means that for extended space flights in zero gravity they should be much better at avoiding the problems that slobby heterosexual men are well known for. They have better personal hygene, which means that they are less likely to suffer from disease.

homosexual men have better interpersonal skills. Thus we can see that they are much more suited to getting on with each aother, and sensing interpersonal problems before they even occur. In the wilderness of space this is extremely important.

Spacecraft with gay occupants would need less radiation shielding. The first sign of radiation poisoning is that you hair falls out and longer term effects include the loss of reproductive ability. As gays are unlikely to reproduce, and also are obsessive when it comes to waxing and shaving, and indeed defoliation of all sorts, we can see that radiation poisoning will have no effect on them. This will allow the space craft to be much smaller, lighter and faster.

Gay men make better cultural ambassadors. The mark of any advanced society is that it is tolerant towards homosexuals. If one looks at the Ancient Greeks, and in particular the Spartans, one will find that they positively encouraged homosexual relations. Indeed, the Spartans had their men living in dormitories, from birth till the age of 30, and the whole army and society was based on homosexuality. Heterosexual relations were strictly controlled, and it is thought that the Spartan army was so fearsome because the men truly loved and fought for one another. If aliens should happenstance upon our ambassadors to the stars, they should be impressed by our civilisation's cultural equality and social tolerance. They will then surely be more likely to trade us advanced technology for the better of all Mankind. And should, as has been mooted, the aliens wish to sexually expirement upon our brave pioneers, then the astronauts should find it far less stressful, already used as they are to alternative sexual behaviour.

Precedents

Analogous to the issue of space crews being homosexual are submarine and Navy crews. In times past, navy crews would have a so-called 'pegboy', who would sit on a one legged stool the wrong way round in order to keep his rectum properly distended during the day, and then be used for services during the evening. Submarine crews, which have often spent months at a time at sea, have also had notable instances of homosexuality. The first example is inhumane, and the second probably caused much strife and splits in the crew, but nonetheless it shows that homosexuality does historically play a part in important and critical missions. An all-homosexual crew would surely be better equipped, and not have the tensions and guilt that occur when otherwise straight men become homosexual out of desperation.

Reading this, you may well ask "Why not just use women for the task?". The answer is simple - women are too emotional and weak, and are not as skillfull spatially as gay men, though they do share their talents in dexterity and language (important for effectively communicating with each other and mission control). There may be a case for lesbians however- the only problem here may be their physical weakness.

These problems have not manifested themselves until now because we have barely been outside our cosmic neighbourhood. But it is clear that the deviant working conditions of space require deviant workers, and so as we turn towards the stars, it seems, to this observer at least, that the future lies with the gay.

But, seeing as how there are few astronauts
in action, it is better to go on an individual's
qualifications alone, without generalisations.

Oh, and good troll. You combine the
average reader's aspiration to being an astronaut,
and her homophobia!
I think this should be posted
to slashdot >:-)

Nothing homophobic about it. (none / 0) (#15)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 07:47:51 AM PST

Did you read the article? It is very pro-homosexual IMO, almost to the point of absurdity.

And the point of the article is that generalisations are made already. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that astronauts show a wide mix of races and sexual orientation?

I for one cannot. We should select the best, and the author makes a good case that middle class, white blond males are not the best we could be choosing.

It is time to challenge conceptions.

Typical heterosexual reaction (none / 0) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 07:58:30 AM PST

"Oh my God! I might not be superior to those dirty, dirty homosexuals in every way, shape, and form? Lies! Trickery! Deception!"

Get a grip, why don't you? There is a huge pool of potential astronauts out there, but NASA can only select a few, in what is necessarily a time-consuming, somewhat arbitrary process. The author makes a great case for using profiling techniques based on sexual orientation (similar to the highly successful racial profiling techniques used by many police departments) to increase the quality of our astronauts, and, consequently, the value NASA provides per taxpayer dollar. What's wrong with that?

Dealing with the naysayers (none / 0) (#16)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 07:57:29 AM PST

You have presented a lucid and cogent argument.

I think that the only barrier that remains to get widespread acceptance of this idea is the Scriptural one. Many people will point out the Biblical condemnation(s) of homosexual activity and suggest that this is reason enough to disallow gay astronauts. It is in our best interests to prepare a response for this argument, and I think the response is pretty clear.

Scripture provides clear rules for living one's life, but they apply to life on Earth. There is no evidence (scientific or otherwise) to suggest that the laws of the Bible are valid in outer space. The Bible does not specifically state that it has any validity in low-Earth orbit (or beyond.) Its teachings are firmly rooted in the gravity well of the Earth. Once one leaves the atmosphere of our created planet, they are outside the jurisdiction of Scripture. Clearly, God reigns supreme anywhere in the Universe, but Biblical law is local in nature, and in this case, the locality is the Planet Earth.

Finally someone who is realistic about women! (none / 0) (#19)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 09:01:14 AM PST

It's rare these days to see someone who hasn't
fallen victim to feminist nonsense.
women are too emotional and weak is absolutely right!
I highly doubt lesbians would be any better, though,
because no matter how hard they try, they never
will really be as good as men, and not just strength-wise.

It is clear that selection be made based on skill, ability, and suitability, rather than sexuality.

Why select based an a categorisation associated with desirable attributes when you can select on the attributes themselves.

A disappointing article.

You missed the point (none / 0) (#21)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 09:53:15 AM PST

If we want to save taxpayer's $$s and God knows NASA is bleeding the taxpayer dry, then we need to cut costs in all ways.

It is clear that selection be made based on skill, ability, and suitability

All of these are directly related to being gay. And the point about the radiation sheilding is key here, since most of the cost of putting something into orbit is directly related to the weight of the spacecraft. I found this article made a refreshing change from the 'technology can solve anything' tone that you often find on other websites like slashdickhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdot and kuro5hin

Spacecraft with gay occupants would need less radiation shielding. The first sign of radiation poisoning
is that you hair falls out and longer term effects include the loss of reproductive ability. As gays are unlikely to
reproduce, and also are obsessive when it comes to waxing and shaving, and indeed defoliation of all sorts,
we can see that radiation poisoning will have no effect on them. This will allow the space craft to be much
smaller, lighter and faster.

Doesn't that seem a bit moronic to anyone else? If one of the first signs of radiation poisoning is the loss of hair, wouldn't it make sense to have hair? Having hair, and the subsequent loss thereof, would be a sign that too much radiation was entering the craft, and something should be done about it. If you are saying that less radiation shielding would be necessary because homosexuals wouldn't be reproducing, once again I wonder. Loss of reproductivity isn't the only long term effect of radiation poisoning, such things as cancer and death are as well.

If one of the first signs of radiation poisoning is the loss of hair, wouldn't it make sense to have hair? Having hair, and the subsequent loss thereof, would be a sign that too much radiation was entering the craft

I think they have electronic radiation detectors for that sort of thing. Using hairy astronauts to check for radiation is the space equivalent of putting a canary down a mineshaft to check for poisonous gases.

I think they have electronic radiation detectors for that sort of thing. Using hairy astronauts to check for radiation is
the space equivalent of putting a canary down a mineshaft to check for poisonous gases.

Maybe so. But I still fail to see how not shielding the craft because the occupants will never reproduce is a solution. Not to mention there is no saying that a homosexual male would never want to have kids via a surrogate mother or some such thing.

Which is a non-sequitur, for only people have free will and are able to choose to live such a sinful life.

But the idea stands, space missions should be staffed by married, fertile couples.

Despite being a Godless Communist hellhole, China does come up with some good things. I believe it was Mao who came up with the plan to have planes full of young, married, educated Chinese always in flight (about 50,000) so that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, a core cadre of Chinese would be available to rebuild society. Similarly, if some kind of disaster occurred while a fertile young married couple was in space, they would be able to land and repopulate the Earth. It only took Noah and his famnily a few centuries to do this, it's a small insurace policy that NASA should pursue.

A. Rightmann

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.